|
|
 | | Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
| (...) That fills me with (URL) skepticism> (...) (reverting to FTX:-) (...) He was a known entity when re-elected. You had your chance and muffed it. Wait until '08. (...) Specify, and include to whom we should apologize. (...) If you really (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) Personally, I prefer pin-up (URL) nose art> It still offends, but has the added bonus of (presumably) tweaking feminists:-) JOHN (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) Correct. Because then we would have been satisfied that he didn't have WMDs at his disposal to possibly provide to terrorists. <snip off-topic material> (...) No, Scott, it is not "clear" by any stretch of the imagination. That is your (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) As well you shouldn't-- looked natty to me. JOHN (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Newsweek (to touch on something I said in a n erlier post)
|
| (...) Correction: Clinton was impeached specifically for lying under oath. He should have said "I refuse to answer, because it's none of your business" instead of lying. But he looks pretty small time compared to these guys (and I'm one of those (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
